Cost Of Repairs Splits Northampton School Board

Each member of the Northampton Area School Board agrees that work needs to be done on Northampton High School and the Lehigh School. What they don't agree on is how much money should be spent for it.

And their disagreement has brought increased weight to the value of one vote.

What the board's differences mean to the Northampton Area School District became public last Monday, when the board voted for the first time on a $10- million construction and renovation project for the two schools that was in the planning stages for more than a year.

It didn't pass.

On a 4-4 vote, the board halted the project, under which substandard classrooms would have been eliminated, new classrooms added, and roofs, heating and electrical systems repaired.

The vote was tied because the board is missing one member. And the fate of the project now could hang in the balance of that appointment.

The project could be brought before the board just the way it was presented last week as early as next month. It could alsodie and another could take its place.

Board members agree the upcoming appointment to fill the vacant seat will be very important. If the person appointed to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Linda Filipovits favors the project, it could come before the board again.

In separate interviews, all board members agreed that the situation the new person will face is a very difficult one. Some do not want the project discussed during the interview process, but others do want it discussed and say they will ask applicants their position on the subject.

They also expressed their reasons for favoring or opposing the project.

Three of the four directors who voted against the project represent Lehigh Township, where the Lehigh School is located: Richard Anthony, Leo McCloskey and D. Michael Penglase. The fourth "no" vote was Donald Saul's. Voting in favor were Elsie Andrews, Richard Heberling, Robert Nyce and Larry Kemmerer.

Kemmerer, elected board president earlier this month, said overcrowding in both schools, substandard conditions and inefficient energy systems would have been eliminated if the project had been approved.

"The state will subsidize additions only if we upgrade our existing facilities to meet the present state building standards for insulation, ventilation, lighting, access for handicapped and electrical codes," he said. "There are no frills in the project. Maybe the floor and wall areas do not require immediate attention, but I've traveled to Harrisburg and heard the Department of Education tell us that we have to make these substantial changes in one complete project or do without state funds.

"When you consider that the buildings are energy-inefficient, lack proper ventilation, have roofs that are failing and heating systems that are reaching their expected life, Iagree to paint the walls and resurface the floors if the state will provide 40 cents for every dollar spent to expand and renovate and have buildings to provide for another 20 to 30 years of low-maintenance, energy-efficient operation.

"I don't want to spend all local taxpayer dollars to do a roof this year, a heating system next year and eventually spend more local dollars for less overall values," Kemmerer added. "This (the project) is a minimal-cost approach - no extra rooms, no cafeteria expansion and low-cost roofing.

"I realize that some of the local heavy industry is struggling, which may affect the local economy," Kemmerer said. "But other industries, services and self employment are on the upswing, so I am optimistic that our local economy will continue to support the financial obligation."

Anthony's economic outlook was not so bright. He said he took everything into consideration before voting and could not support a $10-million project.

"I proposed a gym four years ago," he said, referring to the Lehigh School. "It started out as a $200,000 project and ended up as $10 million. Something has to be done. We can do a project for less than $10 million to provide additions and possibly some renovations."

Referring to the proposal, he said district taxpayers would support $6 million of the total cost, with the state financing $4 million. If a $4- million addition/renovation project were approved, the effect on the taxpayer would be less and the amount of needed real estate tax increase could be lowered.

The $10-million project would require 4.6 mills of real estate taxes for 12 years, and would have meant a 4.6-mill increase for the 1986 budget. As it is, School Board members agreed that a minimum of 2 mills would be needed to finance the 1986-87 budget slated for adoption in June. If the project were approved, real estate taxes would rise at least 6.6 mills for 1986-87.

"I had to do what I thought was right," Anthony said.

Saul favors a $2-million project for the senior high which would provide 14 classrooms, a new roof and an elevator. It would cost taxpayers an additional 1.5 mills.